Comments on: Ron Paulson, 52-Year-Old Reservist, Killed in Iraq

By: The Left Coaster

The Left Coaster — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:13:20 +0000

Pentagon Quagmire Tactic Fails...

One of the saddest chapters of US military history is about to be written: the General Officer Corps of the US Army and Marines, along with the professional defense establishment at the Pentagon, allowed another Vietnam-like quagmire on their watch wit...

By: civilbehavior

civilbehavior — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:57:10 +0000

Amazing, utterly and completely amazing. There are people in this country who still see the deaths in Iraq as a matter of free will and free market economics.

That somewhere along the line our great and glorious leaders of the current administration told us that we would have to live in fear of constant terror threats or expunge ourselves of the scourge. What they neglected to tell us certainly couldn't be looked at as a sin of commission but as secret evidence that they knew something we didn't thus we must send our children to die to protect and preserve it. All the while stripping us of each and every detail of our civil liberties and refusing to change the course so they might secure our national security.

And just like in Germany in the pre WW2 era there were plenty of bungholes who continued to believe the government.

For god's sake people what exactly are you waiting for? How much are you willing to risk ($7000 a year?) to stand up and say what is right?

By: spencer

spencer — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:46:09 +0000

But this one individuals death should not be a consideration in how we proceed.

You are arguing that we should continue to fight to give Paul son's death meaning.

That is sunk cost.

What we should do is a matter of considering what the on going or future cost and benefits
will be.

When this war started you should have considered the possibility that this President sending the military into a war without giving it the resources needed to win would have lead to the possibility of a Tet Offensive situation.

Now that we are losing because of Bush's bad decisions the death of Paulson is still a sunk cost that should not play any role in deciding what we do next.

You do not understand where I am coming from.
I have no objection to the war.
I object to losing the war with all the adverse consequences you have in mind. I agree with you completely about the consequences.
That is why I have opposed this war from before the first shot was fired. I expected it to develop as it has and it for to be one of the worse and costly mistakes the US has every made.
And I have not seen this administration do a single thing that has changed my original judgement.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:28:27 +0000

Boyd: Good point. I was trying to do too much math in my head! Post fixed.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:25:08 +0000

Spencer: Not at all. I merely contend that, given the negative consequences of surrender, we should make sure that we have exhausted all reasonable hope of achieving our objectives. See this post from earlier this morning for more discussion.

By: spencer

spencer — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:10:27 +0000

You do know and understand the concept of sunk cost, right?

Your final comment that implies that we should continue fighting so he would not have died for nothing is a prime example of not being willing to write off sunk cost.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:04:24 +0000

Minor mathematical quibble, James. If Paulson initially enlisted at age 19 in 1978, five years after the draft ended in 1973, that would make him roughly 47 years old at his death.

Instead, I believe he was about 24 when he enlisted in 1978, give or take a bit depending on exact dates of his enlistment and his birthday.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with your points, but what can I say? I can be anal-retentive about these things.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:56:05 +0000

Why is it a shock that a 52 year old died any more so than a 19 year old? The man of his own free will cashed checks worth in the neighborhood of $100,000. Nobody forced him to take the cash.

It's sad that he did die, but not anymore so than a 19 year old that didn't have a chance to see 52 birthdays.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:55:26 +0000

I have to respectfully disagree with Lily.

Each of her points have been refuted previously. From WMD's to the spread of democracy I and many others believe she is wrong. I do not wish those who disagree with me to someday "rot in hell". If they get voted out of office so be it, that's our system.

Paulson made a decision to stay in the military and fulfilled his duty. I respect his choice and respect his sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice.

By: whatever

whatever — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:32:50 +0000

Yeah, let's pull out and let the real blood bath begin.

By: lily

lily — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:06:36 +0000

Hope that the cause is just? What is the cause? There never were any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam wasn't linked to 911 or Al Quaida. The war has been a net again for terrorists. The idea that we could set off a chain reaction of democracies in the Middle East was a misapplication of the historical lesson of the fall of the Soviet Union, perpetuated by ignoramuses who didn't know a Sunni from a Shiite. The original plan for Iraq wasn't to create a democracy there anyway. That rationalization was made up after the fact when it became clear that the Shiite leadership wouldn't accept anything else. So what cause can we hope for? Well we can hope the son of bitches that got us into this rot in hell in the long term and in the short term get voted out of office. We can hope that our fellow citizens grow up and get over their tendency to vote out of fear and jingoism rather than reason. We can hope that those who opposed will be credited with patriotism rather than smeared with "You made us lose." The only thing soldiers are fighting for in Iraq at this point is their commitment to serve. They are honoring their vows. I respect them for that, but there is no intellectually honest way to call their commitment a commitment to any thing else. We are responsible for every death in Iraq since the administration decided to barge in, clueless, corrupt, and arrogant,and upset things. The recent batch of be headings followed by a round of gunshots and head drillings should be on the conscience of every American who has one. I suspect that your last sentence is an expression of your desire that somehow this tragedy gets a happy ending. I understand and share the point of view that says it's our mess and we can't just walk away. Well we sure as hell can't stay the course either. The one thing we can do is repudiate the blinkered nationalism and party loyalty that got us into this. And vote the sons of bitches out.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:21:59 +0000

I was presented with the same choice in 1994 - take a lumpsum of $40k or $10k for the next 20 years but with the IRR commitment. I didn't want any more than the 10 year reserve and IRR commitment and took the lumpsum payout, figuring Uncle Sam would find a way to screw me if I hung on for the annuity.